Caryatid

One more reason to get rid of the 7th inning stretch singers. This is just like Ozzie's little act a couple years ago. It is all about self promotion. Maybe it will start an escalation of who can use the most vile language without the Cubs permission during their rendition. Bring on Andrew Dice Clay, another shining example of how swearing makes you hilarious to a certain fan base, and I am sure he will really show it to "the man". Ugh... Relax-it was one word. I'm sure kids have heard a lot worse from their friends, neighbors, and relatives.

1. IP isn't really a good way to figure pitcher abuse. Clearly, 6 IP by Maddux involves a whole lot less pitches than does 6 IP by Prior or Wood. 2. By stating that they "had plenty of time to rehab," you discount the possibility that Prior's injury was permanent, which is always a possibility. There's certainly a possibility that the damage done to Prior's arm during 2003 was permanent, and no amount of rehab can fix it.

He was placed on the 15 day DL with "back spams" today. *Back spasms is MLB code for "crappy pitcher."

I hope this poll was there earlier in the season and those people voting yes are from then. If not they are just idiots. The poll was posted on June 12.

At the Cubs current pace (.380 W%), they are in line to have their worst record in 40 years. The 1966 Cubs went 59-103. The question remains-would Baker get fired then? Somehow, I just don't see it.

Simple-they can just go 64-30 from this day forward. No problem, dude. You see, our manager was on deck when Aaron hit 715, so he's a great manager.

Can the Cubs still reach 90 wins this season? Yes No Are they joking?

Did he use the B word or did I hear it wrong? WTH did that mean? He did. Piven's character on the HBO Comedy "Entourage" frequently says "Hug it out [expletive.]" to his clients. It's a poor and offensive attempt at humor/promotional plug. Ugh...

"Hug it out, bitch" is Piven's character's catchphrase on Entourage.

Piven might get in a little trouble for that one.

Thanks. BTW-Nothing like taking all of 7 pitches to get through 1-2 in the lineup.

Any word on Barrett? This is two days in a row he's not started. Has he started serving yet, or is this just another colossal mistake on the part of our genius manager?

So the next obvious question becomes: what roster move gets made? Intelligence would dictate that Rusch gets DFA'd, but my guess is that Aardsma gets sent down. They're still probably holding out hope that they'll actually get something for Rusch before the deadline.

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want? Is that a fair question? I love the discussion but I don't understand your question. My question is basically simple based on when a batter steps into the box there are two things that can happen-- get on base or not get on base. Striking out means 99.9999999% of the time you will not reach base. Making contact at least gives you a better chance of getting on base. And, no, I don't want guys to make contact just for the sake of making contact, but with two strikes I do think hitters should choke up and just try to make contact in certain situations. I wonder with the bases loaded last night if Phil Nevin would've just tried to get on base instead of swinging for a non-game tying grand slam if he'd struck out? I don't know, but it would've been nice to have some kind of contact there --- again it could've been a double play, pop up on the infield, single, double, line out, sac fly, etc. I should clarify-the point is simply that the question of "do you want a hitter to make contact or strikeout?" without any followup is really a loaded question-of course you want the guy to make contact. However, its really an irrelevant question. I was just trying to point out that by simply asking a pitcher "contact or K", you're not really getting at the point of the larger issue of approach at the plate. There is so much more to the situation-what kind of contact is it, how many pitches has he seen, what was the pitch like that he hit.

Nobody's defending strikeouts-the point is that the difference between a strikeout and any other type of out is virtually insignificant. As I've written now four times, if two players are virtually identical in every facet of the game, take the guy who hits the ball. But picking a guy with a lower OBP/OPS/VORP simply because he "makes contact" is stupid. And its something this Cubs team has done over the last two years. Jeez, this gets frustrating.

-a pop out -a short fly out -a foul out -a double play -a line out -a ground out (depending on the defensive positioning) -infield fly rule -a botched squeeze play -a fielder's choice (out at home) There's so much more to the question of "contact vs. strikeout"...

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want? Is that a fair question?

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first? I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully. I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples. Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base. The only way they make it on an error is if they happen to be in that <1.5% of the situations in which an error is made in MLB, so yes, making contact is better in roughly 1% of the situations in general. If runners are on, simply asking the question "strikeout or contact" is really irrelevant, because there are about 85 follow up questions that need to be asked. Its a loaded question.

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote: "So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter." A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote. :roll: Wow, your really going out on a limb with your argument. You will never find a person who would take a double play in that situation the over strikeout. But your comment adds nothing to the discussion. The point being made was that in that situation most people would rather take the chance that something positive would happen if he put the ball in play over the chance that there would be a double play. The strikeout last night accomplished absolutely nothing. You're using hindsight to prove your argument as well, and you're misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make. This isn't about situations-its about players. As I've written now THREE TIMES, all things being equal, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But "putting the ball in play" is not enough to overcome any discrepancies in OBP, SLG, VORP, etc. Simply saying "he's better because he puts the ball in play" is shortsighted and incomplete. If you want to play the "there might be an error" game, well, there were 3046 errors in MLB last year, versus 4656 double plays. So the odds that there will be an error is significantly lower than the odds there will be a double play. And your assessment of what my comments adds or does not add to the conversation is unneccesary at best.

That's selective reading. Here's what I wrote: "So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter." A double play vs. two outs via strikeout-THAT was the question. And if those two options (and those two options ONLY) are available, I'll take the second one. That's what I wrote.

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement. Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time. Here are some numbers to support his statement. Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol: Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home. So Cedeno grounds into a double play vs. Marshall making the out? I'll take the K-at least it made the pitcher throw 5-6 more pitches and allowed for the pitcher to not begin the next inning as the 1 hitter. Actually striking out with the runner on 3rd=>0% chance, that is, if the catcher drops the third strike. You also didn't mention the number of outs, the situation, and where the ball would be put in play. Like I wrote earlier, all things being equal-sure, take the guy who puts the ball in play. But the point is that it really makes so little difference as to be almost completely insignificant.

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low. I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it. I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless. If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered. In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter. I see the side you are representing here. But its not like I'm trying to compare Freddy Bynum to Vlad. When you say, a "a guy who puts the ball in play", I'm not thinking of guys just like Pierre, or Neifi, guys who usually make contact but don't do a lot with the bat. I am applying this rational to the guys with the high OBP and OPS as well. If the hitter is up in a situation that requires some contact, like the situation we have covered, I beleive that is more beneficial than a K. I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low. I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it. I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless. If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered. In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter.

Yep, that's was me. Sorry about that. Trying to avoid having 4/5 of my post be a quote.

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well? I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all. Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement. Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time.